Then why does our military use M16's????

[REALM]

Ok, in the thread "AK vs. M16," ya'll beat the M16/AR-15 to death. I would just like to know ya'll's view on:

"If the AK is so superior in nearly every way except extreme long-range accuracy, then why does our military use the M16?"

According to most, the AK is:
More reliable
Cheaper
More solid
Nearly as accurate
Easier to maintain, etc. etc. etc.

So why don't we switch to the AK??

[WAREAGLE]

Just a thought, but it may be because the AK has traditionally and still is the weapon of choice for the world's Communist Armies. The M-16 is an American design and when these rifles were adopted, the cold war was still going on at full force. It might just boil down to pride.

[Tomac]

Politics plays a big part in any procurement program. Besides the usual "brother-in-law" effect, can you imagine the furor if we'd adopted the weapons system of our worst enemy (at the time)? Besides, I don't claim the AK is superior to the AR, just superior for *my* particular needs. The AR is perfectly suited for a battlefield that has friendly airstrikes, arty, lots of guys on your side & the logistical might of an industrialized nation ready to repair/replace your rifle if something goes wrong. If TSHTF then I'm pretty much on my own with whatever ammo, spare parts & maintenance gear I have on hand or can scavange. Under those conditions I want the rifle that has the most reliability with the least amount of maintenance. (Soapbox Mode Off...)
Tomac

[Floyd]

The few downsides to the AK vs. AR:

Magazines are easier to insert and remove for first time shooters with the AR.

Sights are better on the AR for longer shots and it has a longer sight radius.

Ergonomics are better on the AR. Safety lever can be manipulated without much movement of the firing hand. Longer pull length is also an advantage. Handguards are round (A2).

Recoil is lighter with the AR.

Accuracy is superior in the AR. Of course, this accuracy potential harms the reliability of the AR thus the need for a forward bolt assist.

The AR is lighter especially when compared to a milled-receiver AK. This is even more true with the shorter-barreled M4.

Just my opinion... I own both.

------------------
Join the NRA!!!

[virginian]

First,let me say that the Ak is usualy more reliable. Especialy if you want to consider that the M-16 was even less reliable back when it was adopted than now. I own one of each and never have problems from either.

Second, I you can carry twice as much ammo and mags for the AR then the AK. I have tried loading up 10 30rd mags for each and let me tell you. The 10 AK mags empty are almost as heavy as the loaded AR mags. Ok I am embelishing a little but those AK mags loaded are heavy. Thats why I have shorty AR patrol work, or long walks. And a NHM-91 with the bipod, a few 75rd drums and plenty of 30s for a more static defense.

Third, as far as spare parts go. If the SHTF you should remember that no matter if it were police, army, national gaurd, or the boys in the blue helmets they more than likely will be carrying an M-16 or at least a rifle with 5.56 in it.

Thats my only my opinion. Like I said I own both and wouldn't give either up.

[Bryant]

From my point of view you can always aquire an AR ITSHIF. But I prefer rugged reliability and this is from a guy who was in the Army. The AR is nice but needy, the round is cute and easily gets deflected in brush but also it is not a good hunting round for taking down large game where as 7.62 can take a deer in one shot. If war was held in ideal situations then the AR is the ideal rifle, but until then I will stick with my AK. And like I always say Ar-15's jam and AK's don't and besides an AK will put bigger holes in things. nuf' said.
Oh Yah, this might be of interest to those who feel an AR is superior. I went not ot long ago to my shooting range with my uncle and his boss who brought his 20 inch bulled barrel custom Colt AR-15 with some kind of special tactical scope and the thing was laser bore sited. He claimed the thing could shoot dead nuts on but once we zeroed the AK's with open sites he got a quite the run for the money. I know we out shot him but even if we did not, the Ak's only cost 1000.00 dollars combined and only spent a hundred dollars on ammo, where as his was a custom job worth around 2500.00 for competition use and he probably spent 350.00 dollars on match grade ammo. Just because you spend the money does not mean you have the best rifle.

[Destroyer]

Why does the U.S. issue the M-16? POLITICS, POLITICS, POLITICS. That's all military higher-up stuff is, is politics. (The M-14 is a better rifle than the 16 will ever even dream of being. It got dumped. Why? Politics.)

[Necron99]

The Complete AR15 Sourcebook by Duncan Long does a good job of explaining the history and development of the AR15. It's adoption was based on wound statistics compiled from WWI, WWII and Korea. Plus alot of politics. What the armed services realized (the Germans had this figured out by late 43' in WWII hence the sturmgewehr44 and the Russians got it done with the AK47) is that almost all infantry gunfire is under 300 meters, of that the vast majority of casulties occur under 100 meters, and a weapon that can be fired rapidly and repeatedly was more effective than a full powered rifle. NATO looked into adopting the German round (7.92x33) or a British .280 enfield round in the late 40's but the US didn't pull their head out of their ass until the late 50's, hence the "development" of the .308 which is almost identical to 30-06. When the US adopted the .223 round they HUGELY overlooked something that was essential to the German adoption of the 7.92K and the Russian adoption of the 7.62x39 round. That is the critical issue of tactical penetration. WWII was a war of fast blitzkriegs and heavy resistance was encountered in dense terrain. Most of the nasty infantry actions occurred in and around cities, the infantry needed a weapon that could send out a high volume of bullets that can penetrate light and medium cover to hit the target behind it. The 7.92K, 7.62x39 and the .280 enfield all did this. The .223 does NOT. Clear shots are extremely rare in infantry actions. Violent organizations of all stripes, the world over use the Kalishnikov, one because it is readily available, and two it will penetrate a car or housewall and kill the occupant inside. Imagine the Hez Bolleh or African National Congress ambushing a key political figure for example and finding out the round they are using deflects off the windshield of a common car (much less an armored one). This is what happens with the .223 round!

[WAREAGLE]

Another reason I've heard used for the 5.56 caliber switch (also could be applied to the .45 to 9mm switch), aside from the obvious recoil advantage, is the intent to wound instead of kill. I've heard it stated that it is better to wound than kill an enemy soldier because it takes AT LEAST one other to drag him to safety if not two. You end up tying up more manpower on the wounded, whereas if you kill them, they just leave them there and keep fighting. Don't know how much this plays into the scenario, but I've heard it several times.

[REALM]

I see what you're saying... assuming the enemy cares about its fellow soldiers. I assume everyone does, even terrorists. http://www.ak-47.net/akcgi/smile.gif

[Bryant]

why do you think they outlawed hollow points in warfaire, to help in making sure soldiers are wounded not killed now they out lawed landmines, I like that idea, landmines are a little unfaire but as far as perimeter deffense well your srewed I guess.

[khopdog]

Another reason why the M16 was adopted in the middle of a war (Never a good idea under any circumstances) is because during the Vietnam era, the secretary of state was a statistic junkie. A study of previous wars revealed that most gunshot wounds were random and the average soldier would not use aimed fire in combat. The secretary of state (Being a statistic junkie) figured if bullet wounds were random then the soldier firing the most bullets should win, hence the .223 round was design to be smaller and lighter so more ammunition could be carried and fired hence giving you a better chance of receiving a hit. He believed in this concept so much that he forced the military to take the M16 even though they were in the middle of a conflict! The ironic thing is with the orginial principle being volume of fire to win a battle the US army is now doing the opposite by limiting it's soldiers to 3 round burst (Which sucks). Haven't these guys learned from history yet. Mr. Kalashnikov himself went to the pentagon about 10 years ago to convince the US military to adopt his rifle. As you guess he got laughed out the building. The strength of the AK design is it's magazine, compare one to a M16 magazine and you can see the difference in reliability right there. The best gun in the world wont do you anygood if the bullets can't get into the chamber. As far as the comment on weight try out the AK74 with dragunov style stock, a fully loaded magazine weighs nothing and recoil is nil.

[This message has been edited by khopdog (edited August 30, 1999).]

[Bryant]

The full auto rate on an M16 is about the same as the AK, plus the Ak is a hell of alot more meaner, I wish Mr. Klashinikov would have succeeded in getting his desighn excepted then their would be tons of ammo and accessories, besides it makes sense to use the same ammo and mags as your enemy, that way when in the bush for a while you can scavenge.

[Garth Odinson]

One of the above postings mentions the politics of the situation. This is the ultimate reason why our troops don't have a better system.

I have a few friends from when I served. They are currently in USSOCOM. They tell me how much they hate the M4 carbine. They say they have nothing but problems with that system. They all try to get issued HKs or valmet.

------------------
Front sight up!

[This message has been edited by Garth Odinson (edited August 31, 1999).]

[recon]

Garth,welcome to the net. Nice to see another fellow pa. here.

[Packrat]

In the early 60's when Colt got the rights to the AR15, they started a vicious campaign against the M14. The M14 had some problems (the early ones would not feed when hot unless they were soaked in oil), but the big argument was that the AR15 DID NOT NEED TO BE CLEANED!!! Of course, as soon as they got into combat, the Army discovered that they needed more cleaning than the M14. Second, the first guns were tight, and when they got hot, the bolt expanded and froze in the receiver. Read some of the books written by VN veterans and see what they say. Look for ones that were there when the switch was made to M16s. Third, when the ammunition companies started making military quantities of ammunition, they created a shortage of powder. They changed to an available powder, which just happened to be MUCH dirtier than the original. You can sometimes find the "comic books" that the Army issued to troops as propaganda about cleaning the M16. The comic-book format was chosen because of the literacy level of the average infantryman.

Colt's drive to sell these rifles made them a lot of money, and killed an unknown number of American troops. Even now, an AR costs about three times as much as a new AK to military buyers. Yet one of the regulars on the Kalashnikov board, who is LEO and could buy with a letter from his chief, said that he was told "no way" that he would be given approval for an AK, though the chief would be happy to approve an AR for him.

------------------
Packrat

[khopdog]

The M4 carbine came to my last unit just before I got out. They offered me one and I told them no way, I let someone else work the bugs out I'll stick with my inadequte M16 but at least I know what was wrong with that. They were having all kinds of problems qualifying people with the M4, the first time to the range only 16 out 180 qualified! The army had the same problem (from my experience) when the SAW came in (I would prefer an M60 anyday) I also read that the CAR15 has some serious accuracy problems I wonder if they fixed them in the M4. I would have love to qualify on the Army popup target range with my AK. If any one has done this let me know how you did (especially on the 250 and 300 meter targets)

[RRK]

Having used the M-16 in the military the
only advantage i could see was more ammo could be carried,which is fine for spraying
large amounts of lead into jungles at unseen enemies. But drop me into a forest
or open area i would take a M-14 anyday
over a M-16. I mean really, the .223 is what
it is, just a varmint load. By the way whos
idea was it to dump the M-14 in favor of the
M-16 anyway?

[ramius]

As a veteran, I've heard this saying more times than I can recall:
Never forget that your equipment was built by the lowest bidder.



------------------
-ramius...
right wing extremist gun nut
...and proud of it.

[recon]

ramius,what branch of service and what year were you in.

[ABTOMAT-old1]

For whatever it's worth on the M16/M14 debate. First of all the .223 is almost a toy--I'd take a heavier caliber any day. But remember, the M-14 did have some drawbacks. A guy I knew once told me of some of the things that he encountered using an "Officers only" full-auto M-14. The most memorable thing he said was that when you fired it full-auto, you ended up in a better position to hit birds then the enemy. I have not had personal experience with it, but due to it's "classic" layout, I can see how it would be possible.

------------------
ABTOMAT
No, I didn't mistype that.

[KYGun]

That's easy to answer. The M-16 is American and the AK is not. Remember the Luger / COlt 45 incident. The US was leaning toward adopting the Luger handgun as their standard sidearm and liked it better than the Colt. To make a long story short, they chose Colt for whatever reaon ( Politics maybe? LOL ) and history has been with the Colt 45.

[Volk]

Thanks ABTOMAT. It is nice to see a word from my native Russian even on this site.( ABTOMAT is "machine gun" in Russian).

[This message has been edited by Volk (edited September 15, 1999).]

[ABTOMAT-old1]

It's nice to see somebody recognize it. One thing though. I'm not Russian (and I'm not even very good with the languge) but I had always taken "ABTOMAT" to mean "automatic machine".

------------------
ABTOMAT
No, I didn't mistype that.

[ABTOMAT-old1]

It's nice to see somebody recognize it. One thing though. I'm not Russian (and I'm not even very good with the language) but I had always taken "ABTOMAT" to mean "automatic machine".

------------------
ABTOMAT
No, I didn't mistype that.

[ABTOMAT-old1]

Sorry about the double posts. I hit the stop button on the first one, but I guess I was to late.

------------------
ABTOMAT
No, I didn't mistype that.

[Volk]

In relation to the gun ABTOMAT means "machine gun" or more like "submachine gun". AK is ABTOMAT .

[XM-177]

Actually, the reason the M-16 got adopted over the M-14 was someone's stupid idea to make the M-14 full-auto. Select-fire rifles in 7.62 NATO are not very effective or controllable. The M-16 is one of the only weapons that one can effectively lay down suppressive fire with - short of a belt-fed. If the M-16 is such a piece of Sh#T, why did many SEALs and MACV-SOG guys prefer it over captured AK's in Vietnam? The same people trashing the M-16 back then also trashed the Stoner 63A weapons system - a hell of a lot better then a modern piece of junk M-249. What was the difference between SEALs and regular grunts? The SEALs knew how to maintain their weapons. The only reason Russia succeeded so well with the AK is that it was designed for use by untrained illiterate revolutionaries. And politics. An AK is a tool that can take extensive abuse by ignorant people that mistreat their gear. An M-16 is extremely effective in the hands of a professional soldier. Both weapons have a place. Having been trained in the useage of an M16A2, I'll opt for an AR-15 any day. Besides, the AR-15/M-16 is ergonomical and lightweight. (Nomex on.)

[KYGunz]

Like I've already said up the board a thread a piece, One word answer this question: Domestic product. Politics and American made products will stick with the military. They would want to be know as a bad Government now woule they buying and using arms from other countries? LOL ha ha Isn'y that a laugh, They're already not thought of very nicely.........

------------------
keep on Shooting, KYGunz

[20mount]

My father spent two terms in NAM as a green beray sargent E5 over 6 I think. He always told me since I started collecting guns to buy AK's. A couple week's ago I mentioned to him I was thinking of buying a AR-15. I thought he was going to kick my ass!!! Them damn AR's will get you killed he said. When attacking convey's they would have to kill some VC for their AK's in order to be successful simply because of penetration. I say keep the AK and and a AR for last resort.
Member of the NRA,GOA,and CCRKBA Jion them all!!!

[This message has been edited by 20mount (edited 10-06-1999).]

[This message has been edited by 20mount (edited 10-06-1999).]

[XM-177]

To each their own. Many Special Operations Forces are very HAPPY with their M16's and M-4's. I'm a military armorer and I love the AR15/M16 design. It's very reliable - IF you know how to properly maintain it. If you treat an AR like Sh#t, it will treat you the same. But who, other then an amateur, wants to treat a good weapon like sh#t anyway?

[Bryant]

we are not talking about treating them like shit but if the climate or terraine is shit then the rifle becomes shit. The AK does not jam except on rare occasions and it will function if it gets muddy or has not been cleaned in a while. Simple and reliable is the way to go and not to mention the AK will have much more knock down power than any M-16. The first test on an AK was when they dragged one buy a chain behind a truck to the shooting range over ten miles away, guess what- the thing functioned flawlessly. The M-16 jams even if you just crawl ten feet through sand.

[Heavy Metal]

The only time I ever saw an M-16 stopped by environmental fouling was when a cook draged his in the sand with the bolt locked back and the dustcover open while getting into the prone to fire his second 20. He must hace scooped a half a cup of sand into the open action. In fairness, this would have stopped any small arm. I was an armorer for three years and in that time got to do some testing of my own. I buried an M-16A1 in sand with a mag in the well, a cap on the muzzle and the dustcover OPEN. Guess what? It still worked perfectly! BTW, this is with LIVE rounds. Blanks don't count. Some M-16's and SAWS will not work reliably with blanks no matter what. My issue rifle would jam with blanks at least once every two or three mags but would work flawlessly with live rounds. These rifles are NOT sensitive to environmental fouling at all.
I have seen pictures of wounds done by 7.62x39mm fmj and 5.56mm fmj and the 5.56 wounds are MUCH nastier. It is not even a contest. The 7.62 just bores a nicle clean hole .30cal in, .30cal out.



[This message has been edited by Heavy Metal (edited 10-07-1999).]

[XM-177]

Granted, the AK can take more mistreatment if you beat the poor thing all too sh#t on purpose. But my reliable AR can still hit a
target a LONG ways away. At least with an AR you can PRETEND to be a sniper at 500-800 meters. Not so with the high-arcing trajectory of the 7.62 * 39MM. Note that the new Soviet round - 5.45 * 39mm was an attempt to duplicate our 5.56mm.( Okay, so the AK makes " A LOT OF NOISE". Yes, it sounds great. But suppressive fire does NOT win wars - precision fire does.) Copying anothers design is, after all, the highest form of flattery. If its good enough for the U.S. Army and the U.S. Marine Corp., its good enough for me.

[Destroyer]

Not for me! Ever wear a pair of issue boots?

[XM-177]

"Ever wear a pair of issue boots?" Still do. Every day actually. (Prefer my jungles but issue leather boots break in pretty good for me.) U.S. Army for LIFE!!!

[Heavy Metal]

two words: Danner Rules!

[LAgunman2K-3]

i been wearing either the jungle or field or corcoran boots for the past 7 years (i prefer the corcorans) everyday for work and stuff they fit me fine and ill continue to wear them instead of those FASHIONABLE cheapo wanna be military boots that cost more and last half as long --im getting some new danners soon Wooo Hoo ---and why the military uses the m-16? well wound balistics plays a part in it too--the 223 is supposed to have a nastier wound than the 7.62, i suspect the exit wound is where all the damge is done since the 223 would have to break and rip through the skin to exit rather than cut a nice clean hole like the 7.62 and the 223 would mosre likely tumble and ricochet inside the body causing more internal damage than the 7.62
thats just my opinion i could be wrong

------------------
and on the 8th day GOD made the AK-47 and saw that this was good

[mrak1289x]

I'll stick with the AK, but if the bad times come, when I get the chance, I will seize a fully auto AK/M-16 from our dead cold enemy.

[Vader]

NATO 5.56 rounds are more effective combat rounds than 7.62 X 39 any day of the week.
They shoot further.
Provide better suppressive fire.
Have a clear ballistic tactical advantage.
Are designed to kill not wound.
The Russians knew this and tried to copy it.
Why is anyone even questioning this?
Bottomline: M16 A-2 is great combat rifle designed to do maximum ballistic damage with NATO 5.56 If properly maintained, this rifle will outperform the enemy's AK.

------------------

[Dr.Rob]

Get an AK in 223 and have the best of both!!!!!


Dr.Rob

[Heavy Metal]

Or buy a Galil and take up weightlifting If money is no object. I really wish I had gotten one when they were $700...'sigh'.

[recon]

The FNC is a great weapon also!

[jacko]

When i was in somalia i was issued the saw.
We were on a patrol when we got fired on by rebels. There was a brick wall(one brick thick)and the damn saw could not over come that. That's due to the crapy round. For a fire support weapon it should not be the 223.
More like the 308! I wounder what the hell is
wrong with these people when they think that
it was a good idea for the the cartridge change. The gun feed,never a problem just the round. As someone mentioned above about the ar in the beginning of the vietnam war. My uncle was a seabee and when they took the m14 away from them and gave them the ar's the second day after receiving them they got in to a firefight. His friend got killed due to the rifle jamming on him. The gun was sold to the U.S. as a maintenance free weapon. With the carbon that builds up on a rifle after heavy use,What jerk believed it never had to be cleaned.


------------------
''ALWAYS WATCH YOUR SIX''

[gopher29]

It's a matter of personal preferance. I've fired numerous Colt AR-15s (long before I ever even saw an AK). they are nice rifles and I was going to purchase one until I finally fired an AK. Now I own three AKs and no longer have the desire to acquire an AR15. Personal preferance...

-Gopher

-----------
sometimes we must come full-circle to find the truth

[berdanprimed]

To get the poop on what the .223 can't do and what a 7.62x39 round can, read "Blackhawk Down".
Intense Somalia action.

------------------
++ -- ++
Devil Doc

[Heavy Metal]

I have to disagree,
I have witnessed M-16's, with my own eyes, buried in the sand with a magazine in and the dustcover OPEN and still function properly afterwards. They suffered from numerous problems in viet nam but these have long since been fixed. Never, in my time in the service have I ever seen one fail due to environmental fouling unless sombody low crawled with the bolt locked to the rear and the dust cover open. Remember the 10% rule. The operator must be at least 10% smarter than the equipment he is trying to operate. It does require more maintance than my AK but so does everything else. Uncle Sugar had a Trillion defense dollars to spend in the 1980's and if he felt the M-16 was fundamentally flawed, he would have easily replaced it. One of the changes colt made on the M-16E2 (the A2 prototype) was to add a AR-18 style piston to the design. The military rejected it as unessary and I agree. Everyone makes such a big deal about the carbon from the direct impingment gas system but I think it's a bunch of hooey. Chuck Taylor did a 6000 round reliability test of the M-16 and did not clean the rifle for 2000 rounds in the first two environments. He had only one malfunction which was mag related in the first 4000 rounds fired. The main problem with the M-16 was in artic cold weather he was getting significantly increased fouling due to incomplete combustion which necessitated cleaning the locking lugs every 400 or so rounds. It does not require a rediculous amount of maintainence to keep an M-16 operational. A 5 minuite cleaning every couple of days was more than sufficient. If you think an AK is zero maintainence, fire some corrosive ammo thru it and let it set a couple of weeks. A friend of mine did this with his and it was not a pretty sight. My expirence with the M-16 was in the late 80's and early 90's during the transition from the A1 to the A2. My first issue rifle was a well worn A1 which never failed me once when I needed it (not counting blanks). My understanding of the early problems with the 16, many of them were attributed to bad ammo and I mean BAD ammo. Not many people know that some lots of ammo had soft brass cases which had a nasty habit of seperating and leaving the front half of the case in the chamber. The AK is an excelent weapon and I would not part company with either of mine. I have a pre ban poly tech with an underfolding bayonet and a post ban norinco milled reciever model which has shot consitent 1.5 moa groups with the right ammo. The moral of the story is that there are no absolutes and there are accurate AK's and reliable M-16's

[Bryant]

I just like the way the AK looks and it has a harder hitting round. Not to mention the ammo is way cheaper as well and damn accurate to boot.

[This message has been edited by Bryant (edited 10-23-1999).]

[gopher29]

I think Bryant makes a good point. The look of the AK has a lot to do with its appeal to those of us that own them. When I take out my Norinco AKM and stick a 40 round E German magazine in the well and attach a chinese bayonet to the barrel...well...it really does look vicious http://www.ak-47.net/akcgi/smile.gif

-gopher

---------
sometimes we must come full-circle to find the truth

[Heavy Metal]

MC Sniper71,
Thats exactly what Chuck Taylor was trying to demonstrate with his test. It was conducted over an extended peroid of time primarily in the Sonora desert of Arizona, I believe. He did not do routine maintainence on any of the rifles.
If I can turn up the article, I will PDF it and e-mail it if you would like.

[Bryant]

This debate is getting old, everyone knows the AK hits harder and is more durable, if you disagree then fine but if you trust your AR as a survival weapon then at least we won't have to worry about you to long. You can justify all day long that you think the AR is better in some way because you paid more for it or because you spent another 500.00 for upgrades just to get it a little more accurate, given the ideal conditions of course. Yet some say they drag their AR's through mud or whatever and it still fires, hey that's great. Well just ask our buddy FNG70, when he was in Nam they found a crate of AK's under water in a creek. The crate had rotted away but they took out one of the AK's and had to get a hammer to bust the safety down which had rusted to the side of the gun. The wood on the gun was pretty much rotted away but they found some mags and ammo, loaded up the clip and started spraying. He could not believe it, they did not even clean out the barrel. So you can say you're AR is tough but their ain'nt no way in hell you could do that with an AR no matter how much you paid for it.

[Heavy Metal]

Everyone KNOWS that AK's hit harder? I know someone who dissagrees with you besides me.
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/wbardwel/public/nfalist/fl_aw_report2.txt

[url]http://www.firearmstactical.com/images/xae2.jpg/[url]

...as for the 5.56mm? Scroll halfway down the page and check out the article and the picture.
http://www.firearmstactical.com/briefs13.htm

To my knowledge, Dr. Facklers studies on wound ballistics are the most respected in the field. He compares things using scientific methodology and reaches conclusions that sometimes challenge conventional wisdom.

[Heavy Metal]

DP

[This message has been edited by Heavy Metal (edited 10-25-1999).]

[Heavy Metal]

I did not say it was INEFFECTIVE, just not AS effective. No one would argue that the .22lr is an effective manstopper, but it has killed tens of thousands of people over the past 100 years nonetheless. Even an air rifle can kill if it hits you in the right spot.
If you read carefully, the caveat on 5.56 fragmentation limitation of 100 meters was only for 14.5 inch barrels and did not apply to the more common 16 and 20 inch barrel models.

Another Wound Ballistics Link regarding military rounds: http://www.fen.baynet.de/norbert.arnoldi/army/wound.html

[Bryant]

All that I am saying is that the 7.62 cartridge hits harder and has more penetration, the .223 does have more fragmentation capabilities but because of that it will not penetrate a wall or other barrier. I would not want to be hit with either round but suffice to say I could fire through a wall and hit my target where as if being fired on by the .223 you would need less cover. Have you ever shot a cinder block with an AK, it eats it, take out chunks and punches through. I will however test the .223 against the 7.62 on a cinder block and give my results. But as far as personal preferance I would prefer the penetration of the 7.62 to the fragmentation of the .223. Think in terms of urban combat situations, with the .223 you would need a clear shot without any obsticles or barriers where as with the 7.62 you could hit a target that is hiding behind something so to speak.

[Heavy Metal]

I agree that there is indeed merit in the penetration abilities of the 7.62x39. Remember one thing: AS CIVILIANS, YOU CAN USE WHATEVER BULLET YOU WANT! You are not prohibited by the Hague convention from using expanding bullets. I personally mix 50-50 on my close range defense mags ball-soft point. Just like I load my shotgun with alternating rounds of no4 buck and 00. If you like penetration, you should see what a Springfield M1a can do to an old junk school bus.

[Packrat]

Notice that the AR effectiveness is with long barreled rifles at under 100 yds. With a short barrel, or longer distance, the damage due to velocity (bullet fragmenting) does not occur.

I had almost forgotten the details of the Stockton case. Purdy must have been one of the most effective shooters we've had, with 30 people shot. He didn't aim too well -- at the distances he was shooting they should have been all headshots -- but it seems that the fatality rate was not bad.

I'm sure that the US troops and people who lost friends and family will be glad to know that it was an ineffective round that killed these people. Remember, unlike the US, and most of the armies we have faced within recent history, the VC and NVA were limited on artillery.

------------------
Packrat

[Larry A]

Thank you all for an excellent discussion!

[Gun Plumber]

One of the reasons the M-16 wounds were so nasty in Viet Nam is because the first rifles used a 1 in 14 twist barrel. The .223 round was bearly stable and when it hit flesh it would tumble! I have a older CAR-15 SP1 with a 1 in 12 twist barrel and would not trade it for anything.

[Chris C]

Ok people here's the scoop...
Almost EVERY SOLDIER/FORMER SOLDIER I KNOW
prefers the AK to the M16 or AR.

The US Military does, or has used the AK though. All those "insurgent" missions that
our Special Forces go into?
They train villagers and rabble to use AKs.
WHY??
Because they are reliable, effective, and
easy to maintain. AND they are cheap too.
Read some books, watch some history programs.
We have used the Ak before. Just not OFFICIALLY.

http://www.ak-47.net/akcgi/smile.gif

Chris

[ChrisL]

On the Discovery channel there has been a series running about the SEALS, I'm sure some have seen it. One of the episodes shows the unit going through a center field exercize. Most are armed with M4's I belive along with the requisite M60E3 gunners. One of the operators, however, is using an AK. Also, nice to see them using the M14 for other missions.

Regards, Chris..

[This message has been edited by ChrisL (edited 11-16-1999).]

[Gonzo]

The US is held to the highest standard in the world. We bragged about our laser guided bombs with surgical precision and look what happened- if one bomb misses everyone gets pissed. We can't blame them for expecting more, after all, we're the ones who told them how good we were. The philosiphy is the same with the AR, I reckon. If a soldier (a US representative)is going to shoot at somone he'd better hit what he's aiming for and Nothing/Nobody else. Also, not all fighting is close up- sometimes the only target you get may be at some distance and only for a moment. It's better to be able to shoot him rather than shoot at him. No offense, but a lot of you boys seem to think that the AR-15 is a single shot rifle. I must warn you they can be capable of shooting signifigantly more bullets than just one. If you don't respect a guy with an AR because you think it will only jam, you are in for a world of hurt.
Final note: I LOVE AK's, don't shoot!

[hardcorps1775]

Personally, I think both rifles are excellent. Each has strong points and weak points and you just have to be able to exploit one and overcome the other. I was trained on the M-16A1 and have found it to be an accurate & reliable piece. You do have to practice PM (preventive maintenance) and hope you don't get a piece that's been around since Christ pinned on LCpl but other than that it should shoot forever (ball not blanks!). It's strong points are light weight, accuracy, ergonomics, ease of magazine changes, controllability in full auto or burst, rust-resistance, and, as far as insurgency or revolution are concerned, convenience of spare parts and ammo. It's only glaring problems are it's complexity (overcome by proper training), need for constant supervision (which actually becomes second nature!), and it's delicate magazines (see constant supervision). The AK's strengths are it's reliability (absent regular PM), it's ease of operation with a little training, controllability in full-auto, and it's incredibly rugged and reliable mag-feed system. It's weaknesses are accuracy (range not combat), weight of both weapon and magazines, changing mags for novices or under pressure, tendency to rust and pit quickly (even with PM!), and the ineffectiveness of it's round at longer ranges. Oh, also the fire select lever. It's not convenient and it can be a dead giveaway in the field if you're not careful! I've fired both military versions and own both civilian versions and am happy with either. A lot of the arguements like GI's preferring one weapon over another come down to the grass being greener on the other side of the fence and anecdotal stories (true or not). The fact of the matter is a lot of testing has gone into both systems to create 2 of the most efficient and popular in the world. So dance with the one what brung ya and quit whining! (c:

[Cogito Ergo Zoom]

I have a few comments regarding the AK vs. the AR.

First, regarding the history of the AR-15/M16. Some of the most authoritative work (duncon Long notwithstanding) on the history of the AR-15/M16 adoption was done by the late Dr. Ezell (a military historian and once the military history curator of the Smithsonian). A few books I have read by him on the AR-15/M16 are:

"The SPIW - The Deadliest Weapon that Never Was"
by R Blake Stevens and Edward C Ezell

"The Black Rifle M16 Retrospective"
by R Blake Stevens and Edward C Ezell

Those two can be found at http://www.collectorgrade.com/

The third one is:

"The Great Rifle Controversy : Search for the Ultimate Infantry Weapon from World War II Through Vietnam and Beyond"
by Edward Clinton Ezell

Okay, now in that light I think I have to comment on a few assertions made about the AR.

1) I know of no instance where the bolt in the AR "swelled up" and cause a malfunction.

2) Yes there were a lot of politics involved in the AR program, on both sides of the fence. The general gist I got from the Ezell books was that the AR-15/M16 program bypassed a lot of the normal QC/QA procedures that are usually present in the adoption of a new infantry rifle. Therefore it was adopted before the bugs were ironed out.

3) Chuck Taylor's tests; as much respect as I have for Mr. Taylor, I would say that burning up some thousands of rounds in the dry desert of Arizona may not be the indicative test of the ARs reliability in wetter and/or colder climes. The military has done a few more tests in all climes and the results are in Dr. Ezell's books. The AR does have its feeding problems, and they are in part due to the dumping of powder residue right where it should not be dumped; where the cartridge is being fed into the chamber.

Also, it is a note of interest that the military *did* test and consider the AK before the AR was adopted. The examples they had were really beat up war trophies, and they experienced some problems due to that - but I believe the general impression was good regardless. I don't think the consideration of the AK was serious with regards to adopting it - but they did look at it.

4) Intent to wound vs. to kill - I know of no serious student of military history who gives this theory any credence. IF (and it is a big if) a person could count on the wounding being such that it immediately incapacitated the enemy, this would be a good thing. Of course no such guarantee exists, much less is probable. Moreover, even given the theory was true, a wounded enemy could come back and fight another day, whereas a dead one cannot. On the other hand, a wounded enemy could, and often does, live long enough to cause further damage. Furthermore, most of our possible foes, real or imagined, especially many of the Asain armies, would not bother with the wounded. Indeed, I do recall that our forces are also trained to ignore the wounded while advancing - albeit we usually have people behind them picking up the wounded. Not sound tactics or strategy, and I have never heard any creditable (read experienced and knowledgable) combatant suggest that such a tactic should be seriously considered.

A personal anecdote - a friend of mine who spent a lot more time in the military than I did (about a dozen years to my measly four), and who carried the AR when he was not carrying the M60, once was on maneuvers when he had reason to get down low due to being sighted by an opposing force. He slipped in the mud and fell on his rifle (an early M16 with the triangular handguards). The result was that the handguards twisted around and snapped off the gas tube. I doubt anything like that could happen so easily to an AK - although one person reported to me that he once slipped down a rocky slope and the take-down button/catch on the top cover of his AK was somehow depressed enough to cause the cover to come off. However, as we all know - the top dust cover is just that; the rifle will still fire without it (although that is not recommended).

I think my attitude of the debate on AR reliability vs. AK reliability can be summed up by the observation that while I have shot thousands of rounds through numerous examples of both rifles, I can say I have never seen an AK jam or fail to go bang - the same cannot be said of the AR. If reliability and robustness are at the top of your priority list, as they are on mine, then the AK wins over the AR.

A comment on Dr. Fackler's article on the 7.62x39. I agree with his comments as far as they go - but I do not think that they support the assertion that the 7.62x39 cartridge is ineffective relative to the 5.56x45. They do support the assertion that the specific cartridges used by Purdy were ineffective compared to 5.56x45 M193, M855 or SS109. However, as one other person pointed out - we are civilians and we have the option of not using military ball in our AKs. A number of companies make very good soft-point ammo for the 7.62x39 and I would assert that this ammo is certainly more effective than 5.56x45 ball ammo, and probably more effective than most 5.56x45 expanding ammo with regards to lethality.

For my personal situation I prefer the 7.62x39 in an AK because with SP ammo I have exploited the potential of the cartridge, which I believe to be more effective at the probable ranges of under 300 meters. I would not feel underarmed with a rifle chambered for 5.56x45 (although I would prefer not to hunt large game such as deer with the .223), I just prefer the 7.62x39. For that matter I prefer the 7.62x51 - but typically Battle Rifles are larger and heavier and with rapid fire harder to control.

Whatever rifle cartridge I choose, it is going to be loaded with SP ammo (unless I am just plinking and want something cheap to shoot), so comparisons of ball ammo have little more than academic interest to me.

Finally, a pet peeve of mine; the Soviets did not field their first Assault Rifle with the AK after the Germans, the Russians, then the Soviets (there is a difference) fielded their first Assault Rifle with the Federov AR in WWI (one, uno, singular) a few decades before the Germans did. Both Kalashnikov and Siminov credited Federov with the design inspiration for their carbines.

FWIW,
LCB

[SniperSVD]

The Ar-15/ M-16 has greater reach.
And the M-16 is a hell of alot cheaper for the us to produce thanthe ak-47.

[Edmund Rowe]

A lot of the arguements like GI's preferring one weapon over another come down to the grass being greener on the other side of the fence and anecdotal stories (true or not). The fact of the matter is a lot of testing has gone into both systems to create 2 of the most efficient and popular in the world. So dance with the one what brung ya and quit whining! (c: [/B][/QUOTE]

Yup, agree wholeheartedly. I can use either one well. I have a Galil and an AR-15 and I prefer the AR.

I have met lots of Viet Vets who picked up AKs over their early-model M-16s. In the same conversation with one USMC '67 vet who cussed his M-16 no end, a Special Forces '69 vet said his CAR-15 never jammed on him.

What we rarely hear are stories from the other side. In David Isby's "Weapons and Tactics of the Soviet Army" there is a comment about some NVA preferring the M-16s they captured to their AKs. NOT Viet Cong guerillas who couldn't get anything else, these were NVA regulars.

Andy McNab and other SAS veterans describe carrying M-16s on patrols without any problems.

In discussion of ammo type, we have to be careful to distinguish the differences between 7.62x39 military ammo (which is known for it's clean wounds in soft tissue, see Dr. Martin Fackler's writings), 7.62x39 commercial (whatever we can buy or handload), and other rounds. Just saying "AK" isn't enough because AK's are chambered in 7.62x39, .223, 5.45, and others (.308 NATO if you include the commercial Galils).

A comment on the penetration ability of 7.62x39: if we want penetration, don't stop with 7.62x39, go all the way to .308 NATO!! Other good rounds are .30-06 and 7.62x54.

An observation: most civilian AK owners don't seem to get much professional private training. Most semi-auto rifle owners who get training go with the AR-15. This is NOT to say that most AR-15 owners get training, just that most of the people who do have ARs. I know that there are many exceptions and many are probably frequenting this forum but I can't help but wonder how many AK owners are just relying on the history/legends of the Klatch instead of developing that organ between their ears.

As I've said before, I prefer the AR but I can use either Klatch or AR well. Or a Garand, or M1A, or Lee-Enfield, or Mauser....

Edmund

[Hexagram13]

Everything in Washington has to do with money. Why does the military us the Baretta 91? Is it that much better than all other handguns? Surely not there are some kick backs changing hands somewhere. I wouldn't trade it for my Browning BDM.

[Chris C]

Beretta has it's advantages I suppose.
But I agree, there's no way IMHO the Military
Men/Women in charge of overseeing the
M-16 and Beretta tests originally would
"militarily" favor a smaller round over a
larger one, given the fact that both sides
wear *Flack Vests*???
Military-wise, you want accuracy over inaccuracy,
a large, damaging projectile over a smaller
one,
and then, only then, do you look at RPMs.

If I were in charge we'd be using .45 as our
sidearm, and if we'd have chosen the M-16 at
all, it'd be chambered (from the beginning)
in atleast 7.62x39. Maybe .223 for light recon,
but you want a heavier round in your battle rifle.

'nuff said???

Cover thy '6...
(using whatever weapon does the job)

Chris

[PRE BAN]

First let me state that I will speak only from experience. I am not a scientist nor do I play one on T.V.
Also I am not going to say which I would prefer but let you figure it out by imagining yourself in these situations.
SITUATION 1:
you are on patroll in an urban setting with civillians (friendly) all around you trying to smoke out snipers (who buy the way could be using either of these rifles). Your squad leader tells you to keep your weapon on safe and place it on fire only when ready to shoot a target to avoid an accidental shooting of the civilians.....Which do you prefer?
SITUATION 2:
You are lying in ambush of an enemy patrol. The patrol advances and your squad opens fire. You quickly empty a thirty rnd mag. Now, with your eyes still on the target, rifle sholdered ready for action, drop the empty mag and replace it with another and continue to fire. Do not forget to keep your eyes on the target. And try to hurry because you want to keep the enemy supressed as much as possible.... which do you prefer?
SITUATION 3:
you are covering your buddy as he bounds back to take cover. You have taken cover behind a fallen tree and are in the prone position. As your mag empties, quickly roll onto your back, change mags and continue to lay down supressive fire. If you can,stay on your stomach(quickly!!!!!!I said)which do you prefer?
SITUATION 4:
You are ordered to gather as much ammo and extra mags along with supplies that you will need to sustain yourself for an extended period of time, and move out on about a 30 mile march where you are to set up a observation post and report enemy activity... which do you prefer?
You might be thinking that these situations do not apply to a real SHTF situation. But I argue that they will. Especially if "We" (those with AR's and AK's), hope to win back our great countries freedom.
Which ever you choose, I hope for all our sake, but especially yours, that you can function quickly in all these situations. Don't lie to yourself either. It might just get you killed one day.
Buy the way I have both of the above mentioned weapons.
just my .02 worth.
PRE BAN

[STLRN]

Actually Chris, it is normally much easier to get a small caliber through body armor than really big slow projo. There is a Swedish made 9mm round (Carl Gustav, M39B) that is being pushed as a replacement for the M882 ball round, it can puch through over 34 layers of Kevlar at over 75m.

[Tomac]

Situation 1: You experience a double-feed jam, which would you prefer?
Situation 2: Your buddy hands you mags & ammo of unknown origin when you run low, which would you prfer?
Situation 3: Your sling detaches and dumps your rifle down stairs/cliff/etc, which would you prefer?
Situation 4: Cut off from your logistics you've exhausted your cleaning supplies and are forced to scavenge for cleaner & lube, which would you prefer?
Situation 5: Your targets are behind cover, which would you prefer?
Situation 6: The gas tube clogs. Which would you prefer?
Situation 7: You're in a high wind w/dirt/sand/dust environment. Which would you prefer? (Remember the nylons & condoms used in Desert Storm?)
Situation 8: Surprised at close range you're forced to use your rifle in hand-to-hand. Which would you prefer?
Situation 9: You only have $1,000 to spend on rifle, ammo, mags & accessories. Which would you prefer?

My point is that both rifle have their strenghs and weaknesses. Anyone can create a scenario that favors one rifle over another. The important thing is to pick the rifle that best fits your particular needs and then practice, practice, practice as it's only as good as the man using it.
Tomac

[This message has been edited by Tomac (edited 01-23-2000).]

[Heavy Metal]

I will address 2 of these points as I am in a rush.


Clogged Gas Tube??

What is a clogged gas tube? In 6 years in the army, 3 as an armorer, I never saw such a beast. The only case I have heard of a clogged gas tube in modern times is from firing excessive 22lr from a sub caliber device. The cure for that is shooting full up 5.56mm ammo thru the rifle to blow it out. I have never encountered such a beast. This is, IMNSHO, a carry over myth from the early teething problem days of the M-16 when early ball powder with an excess of calicum carbonate caused some gas tube clogging. This ammo was made from remanufactured Korean War era Artillery shell powder and calcium carbonate was applied to neutralize the acidification of the nitrocellouse as it forms soem nitric acid as it breaks down(when you open an old can of gunpowder, this is the cause of the strong, acrid smell). I have re-bareled M-16's and re-used the original gas tube. These tubes can easily go over 20,000 rounds without replacement. The high port pressure of the M-16 will keep it cleaned out.

I would be infinitely more worried about getting struck by lightining in the field as this is a much more proable occurance. Here tha ak would be better as it is shorter and therefore a lesser lightning rod.


Bayonet Platform???

Between the M-16A2 and AK, I'll take the M-16A2 any day. I have a weapon with a 6 inch reach advantage. The bore is 4 inches longer and the blade is 2 inches longer. The Com-Blok AKM pigsticker is a crappy bayonet and a lousy knive. It has a thick, blunt blade which would be prone to getting lodged between the ribs. My Pre Ban Chicom has a folding cruciform bayonet and in my opinion, is the best bayonet you will find on an Kalashnikov series rifle. Still, if you want a real bayonet platform, Get a M-14 as they are longer still and have a nice wide buttplate for buttstroking. Longer is better.

H.M.

[Tomac]

HeavyMetal, not to flame but I have personally experienced a clogged gas tube in the XM-177E2 (which I attribute to the shorter gas tube length). Improper cleaning/lubing of the barrel can also cause this. Finally, I don't recall seeing the word "bayonet" mentioned anywhere in my post. Using a rifle in hand-to-hand does not automatically require use of a bayonet (as I was taught with the M-14 in riot control work).
Tomac

[Heavy Metal]

When did this(clogged gas tube) happen? Was this perchance in the late 60's before all of the bad powder had been used up????? I have shot old Twin Cities 5.56mm from 1972. This was considered clean by the standards of the day, much better than the Mid to late 60's stuff and it was still much dirtier than 80's and 90's production Lake City Ammo. Even dirtier than PMC, which is considered dirty by modern standards.

Even without the bayonet, I would prefer the longer, and larger buttstocked M16A2. BTW the A2 stocks are MUCH stronger than the old A1 stocks. Bigger stick, bigger lever. I would STILL prefer an M-14 for this task.

[Tomac]

Happened early 70s while I was undergoing training for our Ship's Landing Force. Don't know the age of the ammo (although that occurred to me). The Gunny wasn't real pleased when it happened, I think he really wanted to chuck it overboard. Took him a while to get it ready again. I agree that the M-14 is *much* better for hand-to-hand than the AK or AR. Now, if we could only come up with a rifle as ergonomic & light as the AR, reliabile & simple to repair as the AK with the range & energy of the .308 then we'd have something!
Tomac

[Gonzo]

DSA is making that lightweight-hard-hitting rifle for you. It's a lightweight FAL carbine clone (7.62NATO) that weighs about 7.5 pounds (!!!) http://www.dsarms.com/ca_article.htm

Another reason our US military DOESN'T use the AK-47 is because most all our enemies DO use it.
Like a helmet, your rifle helps to identify who's side you're on. The AK is easy to spot, with it's big bananna clip. The M-16 is also instantly recognizable and the two rifles are never confused, and that's a good thing. There's enough "friendly" fire as it is!

[TCloud]

Jesus REALM what a post! Two pages of one hell of a fire fight! Red and Green tracers everywhere! The noise, the noise, the smell, the smoke! At last quiet! Tomac, Gonzo you still there? Everyone ok? Whew, better move around now, watch that damn six now TCloud! Flash backing or what? Seriously our US Govt. is obligated to giving our armed forces the best it can offer. I have a good feeling that they are doing that. The same goes for those who use the ak-47, ak-74. We see the development of the AN-94. Now that the heat of battle has subsided somewhat I will count my lucky stars be greatful that I am a US citizen still with 2nd amendment rights of the constitution have the ability and freedom to go to the range and shoot my ak-47, 74 and Tiger Dragunov and hopefully in the near future an AR-l5.


------------------
=========================
rezskin

[TCloud]

Jesus REALM what a post! Two pages of one hell of a fire fight! Red and Green tracers everywhere! The noise, the noise, the smell, the smoke! At last quiet! Tomac, Gonzo you still there? Everyone ok? Whew, better move around now, watch that damn six now TCloud! Flash backing or what? Seriously our US Govt. is obligated to giving our armed forces the best it can offer. I have a good feeling that they are doing that. The same goes for those who use the ak-47, ak-74. We see the development of the AN-94. Now that the heat of battle has subsided somewhat I will count my lucky stars be greatful that I am a US citizen still with 2nd amendment rights of the constitution have the ability and freedom to go to the range and shoot my ak-47, 74 and Tiger Dragunov and hopefully in the near future an AR-l5.


------------------
=========================
rezskin

[AKDUDE47]

REINFORCEMENTS ARE HERE!!!!!!!!!!!! http://www.ak-47.net/akcgi/biggrin.gif http://www.ak-47.net/akcgi/biggrin.gif http://www.ak-47.net/akcgi/biggrin.gif http://www.ak-47.net/akcgi/biggrin.gif http://www.ak-47.net/akcgi/biggrin.gif http://www.ak-47.net/akcgi/biggrin.gif http://www.ak-47.net/akcgi/biggrin.gif

Ladies and gentlemen have you thought about the fact that the 7.62 round is not currently in use that much anymore by Russia or some of the more advanced eastern block countries? I think some of them use the 7.62 side by side with the 5.45 ammo though. Correct me if I am wrong.

Heres something interesting and I have posted this before a couple times. I like to shoot steel plates, I have a couple rail road tie plates that I set on the 100yard line at the range or at greater distances at a friends house.

Shooting it with the AK even at 25 meters does nothing to it but make black marks on it. + its alot harder for me to take rapid shots on it at longer ranges than it is with the AR.

The .223 ammo takes chunks out of the steel plate. Russian .223 62 grain works well. Every shot makes a 1/8-1/4" crater. I havn't tried the SS109 steel core stuff but it has to be better.
Its easy to train someone to shoot the AR at the longer distances becuase it only drops 3 inches at 300 yards. That is a big plus if you are in combat. No thinking about how much holdover and stuff like that. Just aim and shoot.
IF TSHTF I would rather have the AR if I was in the states. You can pick up whatever ammo you need on the move, and get parts, or whatever. + you can carry almost TWICE as much .223 than you can the 7.62 ammo. Fully loaded AK mags are heavy!
Ergonimics of the AR are alot better too. A soldier can switch to full auto or safe or semi without taking his hand away from the weapon or using the free hand. Also the bolt hold open feature is great for fast reloads. No charging the handle after the first mag. Also mag changes on the AR are alot easier. You can leave your hand on the pistol grip and press the mag latch button to dump the mag out. The cool thing is that they drop free, so you can be ready to pop another in.
Also if you notice alot of the people that dump on the AR are people that don't own one or get there opinions from people in the military. Just about all people in the military around the world, no matter what country they are in think that what they have sucks and the next guys rifle is better. AND just because someone is in the military dosn't mean they are the total expert on it. How many troops do you know that trash on the M16 and say the AK is better? Most of them have never even seen a real AK. There just going off the Vietnam storys. How many times have you heard these same people say that the viet cong could use our ammo in there AKs? I heard this one alot. Many wives tales floating around out there about the AR. Alot of guys on this board would have you believe that the AR jams all the time, which simply isn't the case. If it did I would get rid of mine. Another thing about the AR is that they really are not that expensive. You can make one for under 500 if you play your cards right.
To answer the original question on the M16... they adopted it because it was developed in the states and because colt has good lobbiests? Nuff said. Oh, just incase I get flamed I have alot more AKs than I do ARs! so cut me slack! I give the AR guys hell too when they step outa line
AKDUDE

[PRE BAN]

I can't believe this one is still around.
The US uses the M16 because the AR15/M16 is a superior weapon!!!!!!

[This message has been edited by PRE BAN (edited 03-16-2000).]

[HDR]

I really can't buy the "Buy America.." The Beretta, the Karl Gustoff RR, those trail vehicles and so many other examples aren't american made. Lots of SF-SOG live around here, the love the M4. AK is fine with them also. If you ask which is better? The most common answer is "depends which side I feel like taking today.."
I've used both in combat, both are damn fine weapons. Both have kicked enough ass in combat to prove that in spades. Let's not go to who won VietNam either, try who lost it politicians and the blowjob newsmedia. Of course as a gun owner we are experiencing their BS right now..

The early 16's sucked! 400 rounds for an Ak is hell to hump. Merc's choose neither, http://www.ak-47.net/akcgi/wink.gif!
I would not buy an AR because the price is well past the worth, same with some AK's.


------------------
Sit-Rep negative

[ParaBat]

I think a lot of Spec-Ops guys choose the AK, not only for its robustness but for the fact that maybe when they are in "Indian" country, the indians are carrying AK's as well. And if it every came to a firefight, the indians "Hey those are AK's we are firing on our own troops" also the problem of resupply in indian country, as for ammo is settled. Just take it off of the dead!

As for the this gun is more powerfil then that, well I know some say the 5.56 ain't worth a darn but you have to stop and ask, why has the 5.56 seen almost universal adoption by most countries outside the soviet/chinese sphere of influence? M16, brit L85A1, Isreaeli Galil, SA R4, Swiss SIG SG541, Italian Beretta AR70, French FAMAS, Austrian Styer AUG, Belgian FNC,etc. the list could go on. I think the Soviets recognized the advantages of the "Small Caliber" round used by the west, thats why you have the 5.45x39! But if you really want stopping power, just go one step further, buy something that shoots a .50 BMG.

The Israelis are in the procces of Issuing all front line troops M16A2's. Not because the Galil is inferior, but because it cost to much to make! It's cheaper to buy M16's (your tax dollars)then produce a fine rifle like the galil. But why the M16! Why not just issue them all those captured AK's from lebanon/beruit wars! ummmmmmm, I wonder?

[HDR]

Parabat,
Typically those were the reasons why Vn era SOG carried an AK.
Another? The familar silhouette under low light conditions, along with working with indigenous people all added up to a slight edge of looking like "locals."

Plus in certain adjoining areas (Countries), due to political "we aren't there" BS, no US weapons could be carried by SOG.




------------------
Sit-Rep negative

[Ironhandjohn]

Speaking of "Indian Country" this is one Indian(feathers not dots)who prefers the AK over the AR series, and yes I have owned examples of both!!! I kept an AR til I was made an offer I couldn't refuse and gave it a new home. I now have a friend offer me a nice used 4-wheeler for my AK, to which I said "thank you no" http://www.ak-47.net/akcgi/rolleyes.gif

------------------
It's really simple,just follow steering and flow with it. You see, Ironhand's my thing!

[This message has been edited by Ironhandjohn (edited 03-17-2000).]

[ParaBat]

Of course, when the "Time" comes (if you know what I mean!) the best rifle will be the one you have in your hand! So practice up and buy ammo, 'cause it's only going to get worse before it gets better! .2 1/2 cents.

[backblast]

ParaBat - BINGO! No matter what you have for a weapon, be fimiliar and proficient with it inside and out. A-number-one rule is, your weapon is only as good as YOU are. What good is the weapon if you don't know how to use it - absolutely zilch, get you dead zilch. It is an extension of your body, treat it as such!

An AR will kill you just as dead as an AK in the hands of a trained rifleman! (Well quicker when trained, spray enough fire, you'll hit something eventually) Actually goes for any firearm.

Regardless AR - AK - whatever, take care of it. I don't know why folks want to rock-n-roll, abuse and torture these fine rifles, it just kills them that much sooner. Love these weapons, they won't be around forever, plus the future for these is not looking promising. Your life may depend on these, don't abuse them now cause they will be questionable when you need 'em. All machinery and hardware break down.

On handguns, they are only good for getting you back to the rifle you never should have put down in the first place! (could never shoot them well anyway!) http://www.ak-47.net/akcgi/tongue.gif cya!

That's my .05 worth - no cent key on my keyboard. Dang!

My preference for a rifle is the AK. It's history speaks for itself. Just like FORD trucks, the best!!

[Azadtodeth]

The old M-16 vs AK debate there both good weapons Ive used both in combat and they can both suck just as equally,you wanna talk take down power this cal vs this cal? Ive taken out deer with a 10-22,penatration? I got a modified 30-30 that takes 200gr depleted uranium shells that will perice 4 in
steel plate at 300 yards,I own both weapons and you know what I like my Romanian SKS,Why I like the way it shoots its that simple it all boils down to personal perferance,the only thing that makes one better than an other is training and lots of practice.

------------------
"I have become death destroyer of worlds."

[This message has been edited by Azadtodeth (edited 03-27-2000).]

[ALAL ENKI]

My ARs are dry of most lube. When I tried this with my SLR it started to rust quickly.
In a situation with no lube I would much rather have my Bushmaster.
I have shot thousands of rounds with no sign of failing. Dirty, clean, wet, dry, it just keeps going bang with great accuracy.
You can't compair the old buggy 70s and earlier ARs with the vast improved design of todays M16A2.
TOMAC, you forgot a catagory, *When you want to hit a target at 300 yards when all you can see is a head, which would you prefer*


------------------
The key to immortality, is first living a life worth remembering...
ENKI
GET PAID ALOT WATCHING ADS ONLINE (http://www.bepaid.com/users.rhtml?REFID=10447730)
ADD ON TO THAT! Make money just for SURFING! (http://www.alladvantage.com/go.asp?refid=lfy949)
BOTH are totally LEGIT! and can be used together!!

[Swiss one]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Gonzo:
[B]The US is held to the highest standard in the world. We bragged about our laser guided bombs with surgical precision

Actually the hit ratio during DS and the Kosovo conflict was pretty lousy, not even 10 % of your "surgical precision strikes" actually hit anything

[dlrector]

AR/AK debate. I've only owned AR's, but am looking to purchase an AK, because I see advantages to both. However, show up to a tactical school with an AK, don't be shocked at the beratement you'll take, some of it deserved. These schools take safety seriously, something that definitely hinders the AK user. Try taking a snap shot, beginning with the safety on, with both. The instructors will point out that if you're using an AK, better hope the enemy doesn't have an AR, 'cause he'll shoot you dead before you can move the lever on an AK. The AK is fast if safety is off and ready to fire, but do you really think it's acceptable in a SWAT team to have the safety off? The lack of a bolt hold-open device and flash suppressor is missed too. Sights are the other thing holding back the AK, but with the advent of the side rail and Cobra sight, at least this deficiency is corrected. With all this said, I still want an AK, mostly for fun, it's cheaper, less expensive to feed. I can also have a clearer conscience abusing an AK than an expensive preban AR. Plus, it's cool to have more toys.

[Mr Purple]

I'm really suprised no one has mentioned the "slamfire dance" that occurs sometimes with the beloved Kalashnikov's. DON"T tell me it doesn't happen...I've been witness to it not once, but twice (first time Chinese SKS/second time Eqyptian MAK-90).
The fact that any one of you can feel so strongly that one rifle is indeed superior is akin to the old Chevy/Ford debate...there will never be agreement.
You will never convince the other side, so carry what you want and move on. Within the circle of the gunowner "campfire", little arguments like this are distracting us from the REALLY dark forces just outside the light from OUR campfire. I know this is a friendly discussion, nut I gotta tell ya...I'm living in what very soon may be a Clinton-operated New York, and I'm scared as hell! I'm posting right here and right now to warn you ALL---she has a good shot at winning.
I know it's a cool discussion, but I also see that there are almost 100 postings to this topic. What we need right now is a little solidarity. You want an AK? More power to you. AR? Fine. But let's get this bitch out of my state!!! She want's to ban ANY AND ALL SEMI-AUTOMATIC FIREARMS.
For God's sake, guys, HELP!!!

[Belthar]

Personaly, I do not understand what is wrong with the M14 as a military rifle. It shoots a far more powerfull round than either the AK or the M16 and from my experience with the commercial equivalent (the Springfield M1A) the M14 is more dependable than either the AK or M16. I own an AK and a preban AR. Combat vets I have talked with and books and articles from combat vets, for the most part, seem to agree that the M16 5.56mm round is underpowered and that the rifle itself is much to susceptible to dirt in rough field conditions. I feel the M16 is a product of eggheads and politicians more then soldiers. Check out Culver's Shooting Page and read the book "Black Hawk Down" for more on the subject. Watch your six Mr. Purple and keep your guns, with Hillary in the Senator with all the other rabid anti-gunners and anti-Americans you may someday need them.

Belthar.

[Belthar]

Personaly, I do not understand what is wrong with the M14 as a military rifle. It shoots a far more powerfull round than either the AK or the M16 and from my experience with the commercial equivalent (the Springfield M1A) the M14 is more dependable than either the AK or M16. I own an AK and a preban AR. Combat vets I have talked with and books and articles from combat vets, for the most part, seem to agree that the M16 5.56mm round is underpowered and that the rifle itself is much to susceptible to dirt in rough field conditions. I feel the M16 is a product of eggheads and politicians more then soldiers. Check out Culver's Shooting Page and read the book "Black Hawk Down" for more on the subject. Watch your six Mr. Purple and keep your guns, with Hillary in the Senator with all the other rabid anti-gunners and anti-Americans you may someday need them.

Belthar.

[HDR]

dlrector: The key word to your post is schools. Schools are a simulation, I attended some of the best schools the US Army had to offer, then I went post grad.

Backblast you mean this 2¢?? )!
Agreed the best weapon there is, with no contest and without a doubt... Is the loaded one a person has in their hands..
The absolute worst, no doubt 100% worst one there can be, bar none??
Is the one that is being held on center of your body mass...

Belthar: Springfield builds a mighty fine weapon, but it is not an M14.
I like the .308, but FN/FAL, HK, etc. Only drawback? Weight and easily dented magazines. Plays hell with steel plate, concrete block and will reach out and touch some one.

[Belthar]

Yes HDR, I agree a M1a is not an M14. I would suspect the real deal is probably an even better weapon. Having said that, the M1a is the only weapon I have ever possesed that would shoot 1MOA right out of the box and is never jammed. Everytime I've loaded and pulled the trigger it goes bang. Yes, I agree the mags are not as durable as the AK mag and the gun is a bit heavy. One thing about the AK, I'm bothered by the lack of a bolt stop. I hate firing and hearing a click to let me know the gun is empty. It would seem too that when TSHTF ammo will be a problem for AK people. US millitary and NATO uses 5.56mm and 7.62x51 exclusively. Were are you going to get 7.62x39 once it starts?

[The_Sabre]

I have always felt the .223 rifle round was WAAAYY too small for serious use against cover/body armor. Ditto for .223 pistol rounds. Give me a .44 magnum pistol/rifle or AK-47 any day-I know they'll punch through the polices flak vests. http://www.ak-47.net/akcgi/biggrin.gif http://www.ak-47.net/akcgi/biggrin.gif http://www.ak-47.net/akcgi/biggrin.gif http://www.ak-47.net/akcgi/biggrin.gif http://www.ak-47.net/akcgi/biggrin.gif http://www.ak-47.net/akcgi/biggrin.gif http://www.ak-47.net/akcgi/biggrin.gif


------------------
"Bows didn't stop us at the Battle of Koom valley."
"Hamish, that was between dwarves and trolls, and you're neither."
I was on the side of bein' paid money to fight.
Best side there is."
Hamish, Truckle-Interesting times by Terry Pratchett

[Chris Shiherlis]

Packrat, Im your huckleberry. Before you lecture me on reliabilty of ARs why dont you take a peek at the problems AKs in this board are having. I didnt have to shave/whittle/gouge/grind/weld or machine anything on my AR to get it to work right. So, in summary, I dont have a reliability problem with my AR. Informed people in the gun culture are aware of the distinction between the 3-prong flash suppressor/no forward assist/NON-CHROME LINED CHAMBER AND BORE armalite of 1970's and the M4. To compare all ARs to an armalite is misleading and reflects poorly about your lack of knowledge.
What problems to the guys you shoot with have? Are they kit rifles, or factory built? Have they been modified? Was the ammo or magazines the problem and you just forgot to make the distinction? Aside from the AK you saw sheer off its guide rails its unbeatable in reliability. Ive carried both the AK-74 and the M16 in the Army, and you know which one I bought. In 2 years and probably 4000 rounds I have yet to have a malf with my AR.
Now, on to terminal ballistics. Someone was whinning and crying becuase his SAW wouldnt shoot through a brick wall, and declared the round an utter failure and all weapons chambered in it to be poodle-shooters. Gimee a break, the round is fine as long as you use a properly selected grain weight for your twist rate. With a 1/9 and 55 grn rounds I can vaporize a water filled milk jug out to 150 meters, further away and it starts just knocking holes in them. Can you even hit a milk jug at 150 meters with your AK? As previously mentioned, the USSR copied the 5.56 with their 5.45, and still didnt get decent terminal ballistics, just a louder AK.
In conclusion, the AR is for the professional gunfighter and the AK is for the masses. (masses being illiterate socialist conscript dirt-farmers).
So, Packrat, why dont we go to the range, Ill bring my M4gery and you can bring your SKS, or whatever you have, and we can shoot groups for money. Surely you dont think my 14.5 inch barreled AR with its puny round will shoot flatter and group better then your maadi.

[baskox]

If we really wanted the best we'd carry HK's. In a word the reason we carry M-16's is ARROGANCE.

[Packrat]

Over the last 6 months, the Florida Rat Pack has held several shoots, starting with 5 guys, while we had 2 dozen shooters (6 to 59, male and female). While we got started from AK-47.net, some of us shoot AKs, some shoot ARs, some shoot FALs, some shoot M14s, and some shoot anything that comes along (Sumo). During that six months, I don't recall more than a couple of time that we have had AK emergency calls: a MAADI cracked the rear of the upper rails off, letting the bolt lock to the rear, and there was another that I remember, but not what the problem was. In distinction, there hasn't been a single shoot where there weren't several fixes required on ARs. These are not neglected guns; they are well-cared-for, quality arms that have to have careful setting up to function. I have also not seen all that much in the way of accuracy from the ARs. I am waiting for someone really obnoxious (not of our group, of course) to make a comment, when I will challenge him to prove it. I wait for the day, believe me.

I give the ARs a lighter round, less drop (but an AK sighted in at 200 yds lets you hold point blank on the torso from 0 to 300), and slight ergonomic advantages. It can also be tricked out with more gadgets, some of which may actually help.

------------------
Packrat

[backblast]

HK's, oh geez! A 13lb rifle with WAY too many moving parts! http://www.ak-47.net/akcgi/smile.gif cya

[NemeSys]

The Ak is not domestic and therefore will never see authorized service for the US unless we happen to make China or Romania the 51st state (and they wind up with several hundred electoral votes).

The AR-15 is a spoiled little princess compared to the farmer's daughter AK-47. The .223 round is nice and petite and bounces all over the place if it even clips a twig. If you can get your hands on a few tracers try it yourself. It REQUIRES alot more maintainance because it's wound up so tight that if it had an a**h**e you couldn't get a needle up it with a jackhammer. Treating it like crap has nothing to do with it. We all have invested a fair chunk of change in our toys and most of us take very good care of them, but that is civilian peacetime. What would you rather have if you were in the s**t? A weapon you HAD to clean every few hundred rounds for the sake of your sanity, or one that will forgive you if you blow it off until you feel like it?

I own three AK variants and two AR-15s, and I love 'em all. It just doesn't seem right to have one hanging on the wall without the other, they are all classic warriors. One sort of signifies grace and precision, the other simple brute strength. Neither one has ever lost or won a war, only the side that carried it.

The bottom line is the AR is always going to be more expensive to buy and cheaper to shoot. It may be able to out finesse the AK, but it will never out muscle it. When it gets ugly, I'd rather have one of my "tough ol' girls" by my side keeping me safe 'n warm, than worrying about one of the "little bitches" breaking a nail.

...But that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.....

[backblast]

Very well put NemeSys. I see it is your first post, glad to meet ya. We'll talk at ya later. cya

[Belthar]

Chris, I shoot at the Riverside Gun Club in NC and I've seen several people hit a human silouette target at 500 yards in the head with an AK. Doing it with an AR 15 with the standard 62 grain round is difficult. I know from experience; I have an AR with a National Match barrel. Some AK's are very accurate, so be carefull who you bett.

[Belthar]

Hi Sabre, the Riverside Gun Club is in Ramseur NC. The range has human silhouette popup targets. These targets vary in ranges from 200 to 500 yards and usually the targets are concealed behind berms, so that the only part of the target that is visible is the head. I think this makes a great training exercise. Matches are on the 3rd Saturday of the month. I'll try to find a ph# if your interested.

[The_Sabre]

NC? I'm in NC. What area is the Riverside Gun Club in? I live in Charlotte, in the Piedmont. I'd like to know a good gun club where I can shoot weapons once I buy them.

------------------
"Bows didn't stop us at the Battle of Koom valley."
"Hamish, that was between dwarves and trolls, and you're neither."
I was on the side of bein' paid money to fight.
Best side there is."
Hamish, Truckle-Interesting times by Terry Pratchett

[Chris Shiherlis]

belthar, dont pee on my leg and tell me its raining. If your trying to implie that the AK is a more acurate weapon Im not buying it. Nemisis, I apreciate your point of view, I just happen to have faith in the AR and have lost faith in the AK after using both in the field. If you own an AR thats not reliable bring it to an armorer and get it fixed.

[The_Sabre]

But where is Ramseur? Near the coast, mountains, where?
Sounds interesting though-I'll have to go down there and check it out in a few years.



------------------
"Bows didn't stop us at the Battle of Koom valley."
"Hamish, that was between dwarves and trolls, and you're neither."
I was on the side of bein' paid money to fight.
Best side there is."
Hamish, Truckle-Interesting times by Terry Pratchett

[Belthar]

Chris, I'm not talking about pissing on your leg, I'm talking about putting bullets in the vitals of enemies. Yes Chris, I've seen AKs that will do this job as good as any AR and the rifle is more dependable, with more killing power at longer ranges. Ever seen a Draganov. It is basicly an accurized AK action that the Commies use for sniping. Chris, you use some big and tough words on this site but do you ever do any shooting?

[STLRN]

Belthar:
The SVD Dragnov isn't an AK. It doesn't even use the same action.

[Belthar]

STLRN, I didn't say a Draganov was exactly the same as an AK, but I've seen a lot of them at gun shows, examined them and noted that their appeared to be a lot of similarities with the bolt, bolt carrier, locking mechanism and gas system. I didn't take the gun apart, but it looked to me like they both use the same basic design. Maybe you can explain or give me a reference for an illustration of the differences.

[Joe Botzyy]

Originally posted by jacko:
When i was in somalia i was issued the saw.
We were on a patrol when we got fired on by rebels. There was a brick wall(one brick thick)and the damn saw could not over come that. That's due to the crapy round. For a fire support weapon it should not be the 223.
More like the 308! I wounder what the hell is
wrong with these people when they think that
it was a good idea for the the cartridge change. The gun feed,never a problem just the round. As someone mentioned above about the ar in the beginning of the vietnam war. My uncle was a seabee and when they took the m14 away from them and gave them the ar's the second day after receiving them they got in to a firefight. His friend got killed due to the rifle jamming on him. The gun was sold to the U.S. as a maintenance free weapon. With the carbon that builds up on a rifle after heavy use,What jerk believed it never had to be cleaned.


Second day,,how many rounds did he fire on the first day?,,and firefight,,hell the seebee's always made sure they had their multilevel steel reinforced undergroung bunkers,,and stayed hunkered down till the sht was over,,,and tell him that.

[Chris Shiherlis]

No, it's the old-school Navy seebees. After driveing their tractors all day building airfields they went on patrols. LOL. The SVD is a cute gun, old, and chambered in that odd-ball 7.62x54, and although it has a gas sytem does not have the same bolt locking mechanism as the AK, but you knew that, right? This is just like all AK owners, blindly beleiving all these "urban legends" about how the AR jams and the AK is infallible. Nemisis, if you think you can hit someone at 500 meters with the AK's iron sights then you are high. The AK is an area weapon past 225 meters. How come I never see any AK's at DCM firing lines?

[Heavy Metal]

My uncle was a cook in Korea. Rumor is he KILLED hundreds!!! And never even had to fire a single shot! http://www.ak-47.net/akcgi/smile.gif

------------------
The one with a cap H, a cap M and a *space* in between

[backblast]

Ah, never piss the cook off. He'll off the whole lot of ya! http://www.ak-47.net/akcgi/wink.gif cya

[Don S]

Originally posted by KYGun:
That's easy to answer. The M-16 is American and the AK is not. Remember the Luger / COlt 45 incident. The US was leaning toward adopting the Luger handgun as their standard sidearm and liked it better than the Colt. To make a long story short, they chose Colt for whatever reaon ( Politics maybe? LOL ) and history has been with the Colt 45.

And the 1911 remains the best fighting handgun to this day . . .

[Don S]

Originally posted by Packrat:
I'm sure that the US troops and people who lost friends and family will be glad to know that it was an ineffective round that killed these people. Remember, unlike the US, and most of the armies we have faced within recent history, the VC and NVA were limited on artillery.


For most of the war, the VC used American made weapons like the Garand. They switched to the AK late in the war. For political reasons. Many of our dead in 'nam were due to .30-06, .45 ACP, and .30 carbine.

[Don S]

Originally posted by STLRN:
Belthar:
The SVD Dragnov isn't an AK. It doesn't even use the same action.

They tried to copy the AK action as much as possible, but they had to modify it because it lacks the inherent accuracy needed for "sniping".

Even so, SVDs seem to be 2 moa rifles.

[digital man]

Are we comparing AK vs AR or 5.56 (.223) vs 7.62?

Remember that AKs come in 5.54, 5.56, and 7.62 (and even .308 if you count the sporter variants).

I own a Norinko 84-S (.223 AK) that shoots tighter groups as 100 yrds than my buddy's AR-15 (same round, same barrel twist). I wouldn't mind owning an AR (love the look), but I'm getting better performance out of my cheaper, easier to maintain (and louder) AK.

[Chris Shiherlis]

Digital; I have a Bushmaster with an AK74 brake on it, I know what you mean by "LOUD". I seem to have had just the opposite experience that the majority of the people on this board have had, I have total faith in the AR and am hesitant about the AK. I would like very much to go shooting with any of 'yall. Anybody live in the Pacific Northwest?

[Don S]

Originally posted by digital man:
Are we comparing AK vs AR or 5.56 (.223) vs 7.62?

Remember that AKs come in 5.54, 5.56, and 7.62 (and even .308 if you count the sporter variants).

I own a Norinko 84-S (.223 AK) that shoots tighter groups as 100 yrds than my buddy's AR-15 (same round, same barrel twist). I wouldn't mind owning an AR (love the look), but I'm getting better performance out of my cheaper, easier to maintain (and louder) AK.

7.62x39 is VERY accurate, I think even more so than .223. The .22 PPC is basically a necked down 7.62x39.

The AR is a more accurate design than the AK. No doubt about it. This does not necessarly mean that EVERY AR will outshoot EVERY AK, but the potential is there.

What type or AR does your friend have, what kind of accuracy are you getting, etc?

[Comrade Andrei]

First of all, I have absolute total faith in the fact that the AK is THE best military gun ever fielded. The AR isn't bad and the HK's are good too. The only reason the U.S. army uses the AR is that it was designed in the U.S. Same with the M14. The FAL was being adopted by almost ever NATO member while America chose it's own gun. Its all a matter of pride. The Mexicans adopted (on a limited scale) the Mondragon semiauto rifle early on in this century for the same reason. Could they afford them or could there soldiers adequately take care of them? No but it didn't matter because the gun was designed in Mexico. If the U.S. designed the AK then that's what they would be using right now.

------------------
"Liberal institutions straight way cease from being liberal the moment they are
soundly established: once this is attained no more grevious and more
thourough enemies of freedom exist than liberal institutions." Friedrich Nietzsche
SIT NOMEN DOMINI BENEDICTUM

[0302]

Read Col. David Hackworth's book "About Face". The Col. said he was given one of the first versions of the M16 to test and he subjected the rifle to many of the conditions he encountered as an infantryman in the Korean war. He did all his own testing and found the rifle did one thing consistently under all conditions: it jammed. Read the book, written by a professional warrior, don't take the advice of amateur arm chair commandos.

[ktulu223]

haha what difference does it make? its not like you people are ever going to go out and do some guerilla combat anyways , its hard to be in prone position with a big ass ak magazine , the ar-15 has more parts and tiny parts but it is a hell of a lot more better then the ak , the damn m14 could stomp all over the ak


------------------
"the best feeling you get when your going out to go shoot is when somebody left an old junk car out there to shoot up"

[ktulu223]

anways if the army DID switch to the 7.62x39 they wouldent use the ak they would just replace the .223 upper with the 7.62 upper so you can kiss your dreams of seeing american troops armed with the kalashnikov goodbye haha

[RSeacord]

I realize this is an old topic, but ive only just read it.
I see a lot of opinions of the AR coming from people talking about a rifle that was unreliable 30-35 years ago. Im guessing that more than half of the people receiting these stories have never even owned or handled a current model AR. The fact remains that the AR has been heavily refined over the years and has become one of the greatest combat rifles ever designed. I have both AKs and ARs, and the only "jam" i have !!EVER!! had was with an AK. To its credit though, it came after 2 hours of almost constant shooting, mixed auto/SA. I have also put several thousand rounds through the ARs and have NEVER experienced a malfunction. The AR has become my rifle of choice. It shoots straighter than any AK i have ever seen, its comfortable to shoot, easy to maintain, quick and easy to reload, and its modular design allows me to configure it any way i please. I can go shooting with my long barreled upper for the long range precision shooting, push 2 pins, swap uppers and in under 30 seconds i have a short barreled carbine ready for CQB. Try doing that with your AK. I can get uppers to chamber 9mm, .45ACP, 7.62x39, .50AE, .44MAG, etc. and switch them to suit my needs or desires. So many configurations available from one standardized system makes procurment and logistics that much less of a nightmare for the military. Not to mention it makes repairs that much easier and quicker. The fact of the matter is that the M16 is used as opposed to the AK because of its accuracy, RELIABLITY, versatility, light weight, ergonomics, and yes, because it is very American. Being proudly American, i would bet my life on my "mousegun" any day, and take your AK from your cold dead hands when im done.
flame on, im going back to the AR boards.

[This message has been edited by RSeacord (edited 02-26-2001).]

[Dangus]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Now, if we could only come up with a rifle as ergonomic & light as the AR, reliabile & simple to repair as the AK with the range & energy of the .308 then we'd have something!
Tomac</font>

You should check out the Super Vepr by Robinson Armaments http://www.robarm.com/

8.66 pounds empty, looks awesome, .308 ammo, and based on an RPK action.

[Dangus]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">STLRN, I didn't say a Draganov was exactly the same as an AK, but I've seen a lot of them at gun shows, examined them and noted that their appeared to be a lot of similarities with the bolt, bolt carrier, locking mechanism and gas system. I didn't take the gun apart, but it looked to me like they both use the same basic design. Maybe you can explain or give me a reference for an illustration of the differences.</font>

Romanian SVDs are what you are seeing at gun shows. Real SVDs are VERY expensive in the US. China imports a few, Russia imports a VERY few/handful, and that's it. The real SVD is not a 'sniper rifle', but it was never designed to be. It was designed to be used in a sharpshooter role, where small units could use a fast to bear weapon with optics and power. The real SVD is a pretty accurate gun, and very reliable, but it has a totally different system than an AK. The SVD is not as tall in the reciever area for one thing, and it is much longer. The gas system is much slimmer on a real SVD than on the facsimilies.

[Flight Line]

.

[Penguin]

I have a Dragonov and an AK-47. They both fiield stip the same and the parts look basicly the same except for the magazine. Granted they aren't both the same because the draganov fires the 7.62x54R so the reciver looks longer and other differences in the parts like that. I think about the only big difference in the design is the dragonov uses a short stroke piston rather than a long for better acuracy. As for the M-16 vs AK-47 debate I prefer the AK-47, granted I haven't shot an M-16, but I still love my AK. The 7.62 round is more powerfull than the 5.56 that is basicly a fact, which is more deadly that can be argued because as someone mentioned it tends to tumbel in flesh. I would still prefer having the penetration of the 7.62 though even if the 5.56 was more deadly which I doubt. As a general rule the AK-47 is more relible than the M-16 while the M-16 is more acurate. Granted the M-16a1 and M-16a2 versions have ended the big M-16 relibality problem I would say the AK is still more relible. The first versions of the AK weren't all that good either from what I've read. As for the M-16 being lighter I've held them before and big woop. The AK dosen't weigh enough more to make it that a big deal, truge an M1 grand around then tell me an AK weighs a ton and a half. As for being able to carry more ammo for an M-16 I wouldn't know, but that argument makes sense to me. I would have to say mantaining an AK has got to be a piece of cake compared to an M-16, because I can't imagine anything that is easier to maintain. Recoil agian I would say, shot an M1 grande then try to complain about an AKs recoil while I would bet the M-16 has less I would say the AK's is no big deal. If the recoil still bothers you buy one in 5.56. As far as which is more comftorbale I know when I bring up my AK the sights are nice and lined up, I don't like the sights on an M-16, probally just me, same with the way other things are aranged on the M-16 and AK, I just like the AK arangment much better. Something I don't think has been mentioned is that in there stnderad configurations the AK is mre compact which whould help indoors or other tight spaces. To sum it up I would say if you want more power and relibility go with the AK if you want persesion and more ammo go with the M-16, I would say though that it basicly comes down mostly to personal preferance both are good rifles and everyone is different.

Penguin

[breastman]

AKs ARE GREAT RIFLES, AND THEY ARE USED BY MORE ARMIES IN THE WORLD THAN ANY OTHER RIFLE. AR-15s ARE NICE, BUT THEY DO REQUIRE A LOT OF CLEANING WHICH CAN TAKE UP A LOT OF TIME, AND TIME IS A LUXURY YOU DON'T HAVE IF YOU ARE IN WAR AND IF YOU ARE UNDER FIRE.

THIS IS JUST ONE MAN'S OPINION, AND I AM ONLY ONE MAN.
BREASTMAN.

[verdejt999]

Well having fired both the AR15/M16 and the AR10. I would rather have the AR10. It's the M16 in .308. This was the original design that should have gotten adopted. Howver the powers that be thought that the .308 round was too heavy to carry. I personally feel that the .223 round is not what should be issued out. It moves way too fast and doesn't have enough mass to be an effective round. The .308 however has both and should be the round to be used. I don't have much experience with the 7.62X39 round. I just got my AK this weekend. I can't wait to shoot it.. BTW I am a devoted 1911 .45ACP lover.

[Josh Pavia]

Well according to NATO and what Ive been taught in the Marines is that NATO has rules to war, Example; It is inhumane to shoot a person(enemy) with a 50 cal. machine gun, nor is it humane to fire upon a platoon in a trench with a 25mm gun attached to a Harrier. What im saying is the 5.62 cal. NATO round or .223 will kill a person at a resonable range, and wont promote suffering with that soldier shot. An AK round 7.62x39 will go through a person and usually will mame or render them incapacitated but still alive, and we as Marines or Soldiers dont leave our wounded behind so one wounded person becomes 2-3 useless fighters to the enemy( the 2-3 people helping the one wounded) and they become casualties.

[Josh Pavia]

5.56 NATO My typo

[STLRN]

Devil Dog
That is a military urban legend. There is no rule against shooting people with 50 cals, 120 mm APFSDS, WP etc.

[Callahan44m]

Originally posted by STLRN:
<STRONG>Devil Dog
That is a military urban legend. There is no rule against shooting people with 50 cals, 120 mm APFSDS, WP etc.</STRONG>

That's right, that "rule about the.50 and larger not being used against personnel got started because the .50 cal round was DEVELOPED for use against vehicles and materiel. It is mostly an ECONOMIC thing. It is more financially feasible to use the big bullets against big things, rather than persons. Simply, over the years, that has been turned into "fact", which in fact, it is not.

[ 04-13-2001: Message edited by: Callahan44m ]

[m-t-tomb]

Well, my Vietnamese History teacher, (Nam vet who worked his way up from Buck Private to full bird Colonel), put it this way:

The VC didn't seem too interested in picking up our M-16s after winning a firefight. Nor did they try to steal them from the ARVN.

(Did he really mean steal ?)

I think if the average American was a little leaner and meaner, the extra 5 lbs or so in a battle load really wouldn't mean squat.

Unfortunately for our televised, air conditioned, overfed, underworked, motorized little heinies, the .223 round is substantially lighter.

JMFO

[coondawg47]

I have shot all military versions of the M-16 for the last 20 years. The M-16 works well if you keep it clean. It is a pain in the ass to clean though. It requires daily maint. in the field to keep operable. I have only been firing AK type rifles for about 5 years and have never had a malfunction. M-16 is more accurate. AKs are more reliable. Pick your poison to suit your needs. I don't own an AR nor will I ever. coondawg/OUT